text:
How can I avoid flight simulator software reinforcing bad habits?
While looking into getting into flying I've seen in several sources that using flight simulator software typically creates and reinforces bad habits. Most articles say that it reinforces "instrument" flying which is not practical.
Is there some other action I should incorporate into learning to fly that would maybe help me avoid focusing too much on the instruments? Or would the simple introduction of things like pedals, flight sticks, etc be enough help to avoid this issue?

Assuming that you're asking about typical 'desktop' simulator software, this question has a lot of good information on pros and cons, limitations etc. although it doesn't directly address the bad habits issue.

Yes I had read through that question actually.  I didn't see it addressing the idea of bad habits so thats where I thought I might ask my question.  I guess my concern is this is something I really want to do is learn to fly.  The idea of using a simulator seems like it would be more beneficial then nothing at all other then lessons but if it enforces bad habits I'd rather avoid  that.

I reworded your question a bit, please just edit again or roll it back completely if I changed it too much.

thanks @Pondlife I was trying to avoid it being too opinion based but I realize that its a diffacult question to ask without it being opinion based as pointed out.

I'd add that any training has the potential for bad habits and even unsafe practices.

I remember watching a commercial pilot try MS flightsim (days of the 486) and it took him 20 minutes to get the hang of it.  He said it would be like flying a real plane while looking through a "hand-telescope" because of the lack of view and depth.

The best recommendation I can give you is to get a VR headset. Yes, they're a bit pricey, but not bad at all compared to actual flight hours in a real airplane. Practicing for visual flight just isn't very good with normal monitors.
Personally, I had been playing around with flight sim games for years before I ever flew a real airplane. I do agree that, if done only with normal monitors, it can train you to rely too much on the instruments. For the first maybe 2 flights that I performed in a real airplane, my CFI complained that I was spending too much time looking down at the artificial horizon on the attitude indicator, rather than looking at the actual horizon out the window. That said, after a couple of flights in the real thing, that problem was solved, so it really wasn't that big of a deal. Already being familiar with how the flight controls and instruments work vastly outweighed the need to 'unlearn' that habit.
Unfortunately, my primary training in the real airplane had some large gaps in it. Not long after my first solo, I had a gap of about 2 years between flights, due primarily to grad school, for example. Before I started flying again, I tried using the flight sim to get back in practice. However, even with yoke, pedals, throttle, trim wheel, etc., it was difficult to practice the sorts of visual flying that you do in primary flight training. I had a 3-monitor setup, but it still wasn't enough to be able to, for example, look over my left shoulder at the runway when flying a pattern. Yes, you can pan the view around, but it's not really the same.
Fortunately, shortly after that time, VR headsets came on the market. I purchased one along with an FSX add-on that integrates the headset with FSX. For visual flying, the difference is enormous. Aside from the lack of actually feeling the forces, things like flying a traffic pattern and just general visual flying are very near the real thing, especially if you can get a good model of the airplane that you're actually going to be flying. Just being able to turn your head to the left and see the runway out the window while flying a pattern is incredibly helpful, for example. The same is true for practicing other visual maneuvers, such as turns around a point. And, of course, if you have a good model, the inside of the airplane looks almost exactly like it does in real life. It's much, much more realistic than trying to pan the view around on static monitors.
Additionally, I'd recommend downloading a good terrain scenery pack for the area where you'll be flying. Rather than having the stock FSX terrain that just uses generic textures to represent forested land, small cities, fields, etc., a good, high-resolution scenery pack looks very much like the real thing, especially when combined with a VR headset. I was able to download one for my entire U.S. state (which, for comparison, is about 3 times the size of Switzerland) for a pretty small price. When they say this is high-resolution, they're not joking. Not only can I see my house, I can see individual trees in my yard. It's that good. This is very helpful for practicing visual flight, since you can see the actual landmarks that you'd using for visual navigation in real life.

those are some interesting points I actually do have/use an htc vive and was considering it as part of a setup for this adventure I had read some into the fsx addon for vr.

For me with simulators of various kinds, the primary driver behind focusing on instrument panels is that they are both easier to parse and 100% accurate.  If your simulator allows introducing a realistic level of error into the instrument readouts that encourages looking at the visual elements.

Wait, he was upset you were developing habits for instrument flying?  Some would say windows aren't very reliable.  The windows attitude indicator only works in clear weather. The windows altimeter is pretty sloppy and won't work over ocean or desert.  You get the black screen of death about half the time, though at predictable times.  Windows leave a lot to be desired.  Not to pick on Microsoft or anything.

@Harper When you are not in controlled airspace and are operating under visual flight rules, it's a pretty good idea to look out the window. IFR flight is an entirely different matter. It's still good to check the instruments in VFR flying, of course, just not to continuously stare at them.

my CFI complained that I was spending too much time looking down at the artificial horizon on the attitude indicator. That happened to me too. I'm glad I'm not the only person to do that!

I posted this answer on FB a while back:
I’m a commercial pilot as well as a flight sim fan with somewhere in the neighborhood of 7000 hours logged on Flight Simulator and Falcon 4.0 games.  I disagree with the assertion that the sims are so different from the real thing.  While it is true that the kinesthetics of being in a real airplane are different from the sim, the handling and behavior of the sim is so close to the real thing that the same mistakes I make in the sim I make in the real thing.  They are also very effective platforms for practicing instrument flying and approaches.  It’s not surprising that Redbird makes use of a proprietary version of FSX for its flight simulators.
That being said there are several notable areas where the entertainment sims can be off from the real thing:

Avionics may be simulated poorly or unrealistically.  Alabeo payware is a major offender here.

Games do not adequately simulate weather hazards.  Flying into a thunderstorm in FSX is a benign experience.  This can kill you in real life.

ATC interaction is appallingly unrealistic, akin to having an adult conversation with a talking Barbie doll.  Probably the worst offender is XPlane’s default “ATC” which is absolutely nothing like the real thing.

Airport and navigation databases are terribly out of date and cannot be updated.  This appears to be changing with the advent of Flight Simulator 2020 which periodically updates its airport and nav databases, but FSX and XPlane are horrible.  This dramatically affects realism when flight planning IFR flight and shooting practice approaches, as, at least in the case of FSX, the default approaches are now 14 years out of date!

Terminal departure and arrival procedures are often not modeled properly or absent altogether, making operations from major airports unrealistic, especially for jet flying.

Considerable errors exist in the default terrain as well as airports. Some of the worst instances I’ve found were in FSX and include an airport in the middle of a 1000ft deep pit.  Ft Worth Meecham Intl. has the peculiar obstacle hazard of floating houses along the glidepath to runway 35.  Gustaf III / St Bart’s and Courchevel are wretched as well.

Some sims (FSX) suffer from control lag ie a delay time between control input and movement of the control surfaces, creating an unrealistic control response which makes it difficult to fly demanding maneuvers eg aerobatics accurately.

Some sims are developed around certain types of aircraft and do not replicate other aircraft or systems well.  FSX turbine and jet engine simulation is a great example of this.

Edge of the envelop flight characteristics such as spins and aerobatics are often modeled poorly or completely absent in these games.

Ground handling and and takeoff and landing characteristics are unrealistic compared to the real thing.  This is really apparent when flying tailwheel airplanes, particularly in XPlane.

There are fixes to some of these problems.  Some payware aircraft are extremely realistic - VRS’s F-18E and RealAir’s BE60 Duke and Lancair Legacy quickly come to mind as does PDMG’s 737NG and 777 aircraft.  Additional addons for weather as well as cockpit avionics like Flight1’s GNS430/530 and GTN650/750 GNSS heads are great examples as they use the Garmin trainers as their core. ATC add-ons and Live ATC in multiplayer games alleviate the controller flaws in the default software.
If  you do intend to use a desktop flight simulator software to train on, I suggest that it be used as a means to augment actual training in an aircraft following the instructions of a CFI.   This allows you to accomplish a lot of training on basic airmanship and a fraction of the total cost compared to actually going out flying in the real airplane. While it diminishes the principle of effect during learning, It can accomplish a great deal of goals in terms of rote procedures and psychomotor practice.   Again a good flight training syllabus should be followed under the direct supervision of a certified flight instructor combined with actual flight training in an airplane.  When that’s done desktop flight simulators can be extremely useful to a budding airman. I learned how to do crosswind landings using FSX  and have always been very good at them ever since.   If training is done solely by means of a desktop simulator and self-didiaction,  this can lead to negative outcomes, such as incorrect use of the flight controls.  I remember one point early on in my flight training, there was another student working with a flight instructor who had logged in a lot of hours in desktop flight simulators by himself prior  to beginning flight training.   He had developed the undesirable habit of using elevator trim in order to maintain altitude during cruise flight wile playing sims and it took a great deal of work from his flight instructors to break him of this habit and install the correct use of trim in order to neutralize control pressures when in cruise.

also, when you crash, you don't die.

Hey man. I like your answer. In my experience the avionics are simulated perfectly (which is exactly what you don't want). Landing survivability on the other hand is simulated terribly. You don't land tricycle gear with your nose down, but it doesn't check.

Yes I agree this is an excellent answer.  I figured that no mater what that avionics can only be simulated so well.  I also figured that a storm was never going to be simulated as accurately but the other bullet points you brought up were things I guess I never really considered. Thank you for the answer @Carlo Felicione

On the ATC problem, have you ever used VATSIM for atc? It won't be exactly the same because they usually don't have all the positions staffed, but they work pretty hard at teaching their controllers to be as realistic as possible.

Yeah I know that the multiplayer (when done right!) ATC like VATSIM can provides a much more realistic experience over the conventional ATC included in the game.

You might want to check out Youtube: Cessna 172 pilot with no training, no hours, only flight simulator experience. Takeoff and landing. Feel free to skip ahead to about 6:20-6:25 if you don't care for the preliminaries of him describing (with poor audio) the challenge while driving. I can't help but find it somewhat telling that he only starts looking for the flaps about two minutes (of video, at least) before touchdown, in the air; for me, which controls were which was something I and the flight instructor went over before starting the engine.

@Strawberry Yeah, in general, I prefer simming to be as close to the real thing as possible, but I'm glad that part isn't the same. :) I'm also glad the cost per hour is not the same.

Michael I’ve seen several of those kinds of videos.  Most armchair pilots could land a light airplane, if given the chance, though that pilot’s unfamiliarity with the kinesthetics of flying a real airplane definitely shows.  He gets into a considerable amount of dutch rolling on final not to mention is unfamiliar with the feel of the round out, flaring too high resulting in a firm landing.

@CarloFelicione Maybe it would be more accurate to say that most armchair pilots could survivably crash a light airplane. :)

I think this answer really fits "line" pilots, where interaction with instruments and complex procedures are a central point. It probably fit less the VFR flight people, were a physical "feel" on the aircraft, habits as "look before turning" and ability to gauge distance/height by the eye are more prominent.

In good addons the terminal procedures are usually current and updated regularly with each AIRAC cycle. In X-Plane that can be even in the default game. Terrain is also usually fixed by instaling better add-on (hi-res topography, ortophoto textures...). At IVAO one can learn to talk to ATC at some better level. There are events when rel controlers control. Also, the normal controlers are often at least taught by real-life ATCOs.

One way to avoid reinforcing poor techniques would be to periodically review your flight simulator self-training with a flight or ground instructor.
That way methods which might be disadvantageous to your aircraft flying could be identified, and ways to reduce or eliminate their adverse effect could be discussed.
Over the years several students who have used flight simulators frequently have discussed their use of flight simulators.  Those who discuss it and are good at self-evaluation, tend to learn faster, and retain fewer poor techniques.

Yes I thought about using that approach also to the use of a sim.

Tl;Dr It's difficult if not impossible at the start of your training.  Use it to reinforce your instrument-related lessons
Take flying circuits; I usually start my turn from downwind to base when the end of the runway is at 8-o-clock.  A PC simulator would need a number of large monitors to allow you look back over your left shoulder to see the threshold.  If you can't set that up, don't try to fly circuits with your simulator, however circuits are a basic skill that is taught fairly early on.  Trouble is anything that requires a feel for the aircraft and heads-up/eyes-out is not well simulated.  Using pedals, a stick and simulated controls won't help much either
Imagine you had never ridden a pedal bike and decided to learn on an gym exercise bike and a PC bike simulator.  The exercise bike may help you learn about cadence and gear changing, the simulator may help you learn about the rules of the road and how other road users behave, but you will never learn about things like balance and countersteering
Now, how do you avoid bad habits?  Well first you would need someone to tell you exactly what bad habits you might be picking up, because you won't have the experience yet to know what they are, then you would have to set up your equipment and severely restrict your activities to procedures that don't include those opportunities to pick up those bad habits
When I was learning to fly I considered setting up a dedicated simulator with lots of Saitek kit, but it would have cost money that was better spent on more lessons.  In the end I used MS Flight Sim 95 to learn checklists, procedures and how to use the instruments

Thanks for the answer! I like the idea of using a sim as a learning tool but I also realized that there would be more benefit from actual lessons.  It certainly gives me something to think about.

You don't need a bunch of monitors just to see your 8-o-clock, sims let you "look around", sometimes even in a 3D cockpit. You don't get the same physical cues, of course... unless you can use VR.

"A PC simulator would need a number of large monitors to allow you look back over your left shoulder to see the threshold." A VR headset combined with software to integrate it with the flight sim solves this problem quite well. Compared to actual flight hours, you can pick up one relatively cheaply. During my primary flight training, I had multiple long gaps (a couple of years at one point, due to grad school, for example.) I was able to pick back up in the real airplane pretty quickly by practicing in the sim first. But, of course, I already knew what to do.

The more hardware is added, the more it helps in learning how to fly. On a PC-simulation program, you only have your central vision to detect the reaction of the aircraft on your inputs, given via a rattly plastic joystick on your desk. That is the only feedback you have, of the response to yourself being the pilot-in-the-loop. Central vision is accurate but slow, that is why we have peripheral vision: to rapidly detect movements. In fact there were claims in the simulation industry some time ago, that peripheral vision is enough to detect motion and that we don't need motion systems. That proved to be false.
So add peripheral vision to the feedback stimuli, and more of your human sensory organs receive stimuli and you will react quicker and more accurately. And the more feedback your body receives, the better it can act:

Motion cues. Yes peripheral vision can detect motion, but at a higher phase lag than the sensors in our inner ear, they are way faster.
Feel cues. That joystick always feels like a weak sloppy plastic toy. Provide proper force feedback, to the feet as well, and the incredibly accurate force sensors in our hands can help the body do their job.
Sound cues. Yes the PC has a speaker and dribbles sound out of it, but a multi-speaker environment where all sounds come from the right spot and have very high frequency bandwidth is really something else.

All of these feedback paths are part of the experience of flying a real aircraft, or of flying a Level D simulator for that matter. The value of focusing on the instruments comes when you go for IFR training, when you are actually thought to focus only on what the instruments are doing. So you would be ahead there.

I have several hundred hours as PIC in real aircraft, and I have used X-Plane and Microsoft FSX. A few others as well (Janes simulators, etc). X-Plane's physical modeling is more realistic than anything else I've tried, so I would recommend starting right there: Get the most realistic simulator you can, and that's X-Plane.
Get a proper yoke and set of rudder/brake pedals. (Not just brakes, like for a driving simulator. It has to be set up for aviation, and include rudder and toe brake functionality.) This will set you back well over a hundred bucks, but if you're serious about learning to fly, don't waste time on joystick/keyboard/mouse nonsense. As a pilot, you need to "step on the ball" (constantly modulate the rudder to point the nose into the wind). Hitting keys on the keyboard to do this is stupid and will not give you any useful muscle memory. A proper aviation yoke will have things like throttle and prop levers, switches you can map to flap and gear, etc. It's really easy to ignore the rudder in a sim, whereas the airplane will feel weird if you ignore that necessity in real life. You ESPECIALLY need rudder discipline when taking off and landing.
Don't use the flying camera/3rd-person view/etc. Keep the camera in the cockpit at all times.
There is an old saying that practice makes perfect. This is dangerously wrong. The saying should actually be, Perfect practice makes perfect. For this reason, you should stop using your flight simulator until after you start taking lessons. There is no point in learning (or reinforcing) a bunch of wrong stuff, and then having to pay that much more money for your instructor to fix all the stuff you thought was right, at $100+/hour.
This will give you more motivation to actually start your lessons.
I also agree that flight simulators are terrible at simulating talking to ATC. In the real world, you will feel pressure to "do it right" that doesn't exist in a simulator. You will practice this a lot with your instructor. A simulator will never approach all the nuances of actual radio talk. You can only learn that by doing it in reality.
When you start training, you should get a copy of the pilot's operating handbook (POH) for the aircraft you rent. It will have V-speeds. It will tell you how fast you should be going when you rotate, how fast you should be flying on approach, and what your flap settings should be. Whenever you fly in the sim, adhere to these. When doing pattern work, your instructor will tell you what altitude and speed you should be flying on downwind. Do your best to nail this in the sim. Watching your altitude and vertical speed are one of the primary tasks you will undertake as a pilot, so get good at that. (No, your instructor won't let you use autopilot - assuming your aircraft even has one.) In a sim, you can just wander around at whatever altitude. In the real world, you are expected to follow the ONE rule (look it up) while flying VFR, or at an assigned altitude if ATC has given you one. They will be pinging you constantly with radar, and they will expect you to keep it flying level, at a single altitude. You should also be doing this on your own, in areas without radar, simply for the safety of yourself and other pilots.
Practice trimming the aircraft. Whenever you increase or decrease speed, you will have to adjust the trim to keep the altitude from wandering up or down.
You have to keep your head on a swivel to watch out for other aircraft. It has happened numerous times that I had to perform maneuvers to get away from other pilots who were flying at the wrong altitude for their direction (ignoring the ONE rule), happening to cross my path at an appropriate altitude, hot-dogging, bumbling around because they didn't read an airport's approach procedure, not talking on the radio (because the pilot is extremely stupid), etc. If you're lucky, and you're on flight following/talking to a tower/flying IFR in a radar-controlled area, the controller might see that someone's going to crash into you and give you a heads-up. You can't expect this to happen all the time. Someone's transponder might be off, the controller might be busy with something else or have a brain fart, etc. If your airplane has a TCAS, or your flight school will let you rent one, definitely go for that. It's worth it!
Flight sims generally won't punish you for not keeping your head on a swivel. Be aware that in the real world, you have to worry about these situations. I guess you could get an Oculus Rift or something like that, and just get into the habit of looking around all the time.
In a flight sim, you can just fly to any old airport, line up with the runway, and land "straight in." In the real world, it will be one of these three things:

Landing at uncontrolled airport (VFR): Get on the unicom frequency while still miles away, and follow the approach procedure published in the AFD. This will usually involve joining a traffic pattern. Some airports (like Big Bear in California) will expect inbound and outbound traffic to fly at SPECIFIC altitudes. Don't be a chump and ignore the AFD. Read the approach procedures BEFORE you plan on landing anywhere. It could literally save your life.
Landing at towered airport (IFR or VFR): Tune into the AWOS or ASOS (published in the AFD) to get the weather and runway condition stuff. It will be announced with a letter (A=Alpha, H=Hotel, etc). Switch to the tower frequency, and say "(airport) Tower, (aircraft name) (tail number) inbound for landing on runway (x) with information Hotel." They will tell you precisely how to land, and on what runway.
Landing IFR at an uncontrolled airport: Mix of the above 2. An approach plate will tell you how the approach works. You will generally land straight in if under IMC. Otherwise, it's common for pilots to cancel IFR and land as they would VFR.

X-Plane will let you do all that stuff, although the part where you talk to them is automated. It's not bad to practice, so you can get a rough idea of how it's done, but the real world is more subtle and complex. Practice is how you get good at that.
If you're serious about this, get an account at the AOPA forums. You have to be an AOPA member, of course, but it's really worth it. Great resource for student and regular pilots.
EDIT: Commenter below recommends VATSIM for practicing ATC. This is a VERY good piece of advice! Definitely go for that if you want to practice talking on the radio.

Great points. I would add that services like VATSIM can provide great practice on the radio bits. As with the rest, still can't beat real world practice.

That is a very good point! I forgot all about VATSIM. There are plugins for most flight simulators AFAIK. X-Plane for sure.

"If your airplane has a TCAS, or your flight school will let you rent one" - I've never heard of a light training aircraft with TCAS, are you talking about a portable ADS-B receiver?

I've seen flight schools offer a portable TCAS unit. They are also commonly built into LSAs.

@Pondlife My local flight club have FLARM mounted in their light aircraft. Not quite TCAS (I don't know to what extent FLARM and TCAS can interoperate, and I doubt it's much of a consideration in practice in this case), but they do accomplish much the same task. This includes two light motor aircraft; one single-engine Ikarus C42B ultralight and one single-engine Cessna 172, both available for use as trainers. I'm not sure whether the gliders feature FLARM, but I think that they do.

@MichaelKjörling Interesting, maybe it's a European thing? I've heard about FLARM in the context of gliders in Europe, but not in the US. It might be used here, of course, I don't know much about gliding.

@Pondlife It might be more common in Europe than in the US; I don't know, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if that's the case. I meant to check whether the gliders too have FLARM installed while I was at the club today, but in between everything else that was going on, it slipped my mind.

First of all my advice,
Start using X-Plane it ACTUALLY simulates aerodynamics. Instead of using same set of weather download weather from the internet. If you wont do that simply use random weather generation.
Don't fly the same route. Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity is? Insanity is flying the exact same route over and over again exact same way and expecting this time it will be a different flight that will improve you. Over and over again with exact same techniques.
Do winter flights it will give you habit of turning pitot heat on. Don't underestimate what night flights can do to you

This would be much more readable if you actually marked the end of your sentences somehow. Best with a full stop. BTW the aerodynamics simulation in X-Plane is very simplified although still can be easily better than just a parametrized model.

@Zissouu It's pitot heat, as in pitot tube, not pilot heat. Admittedly the pilot might appreciate a little heat too, but pitot heat is often more important during flight at times when it is needed at all. For an example of what can happen if the pitot tube heat is insufficient, consider Air France flight 447.

I dunno,I Wrote and zero advanced editing post and somebody failed to rewrite that part

@aCVn Honestly, the iced pitot tube was the least of AF447's problems. Its biggest problem was sitting in the right seat of the flight deck.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
Is it possible to see the same sunset twice from an aircraft?
If I initiate a climb just after watching the sun go down below the horizon, how fast would I have to climb in order to watch the sun come back up, so that I could then level off and watch the sunset for a second time?
I've Googled the answer, and several different articles have said that I'd need a minimum rate of climb of 5000 ft/min. However, I've also read several articles that said you can do the same thing in the Burj Khalifa's elevator, and it maxes out at 2000 ft/min. So, which of these is correct, if any?

If you go in the direction of the sun you will also gain on it. So you need to consider forward speed as well as climb rate. You can have a pretty low (or even no) climb rate if you are moving forward fast enough.

I think this question would be a much better fit for math.stackexchange.com, actually. I recommend having it moved there. To do that, click on the word "flag" at the bottom of your question, click "in need of moderator intervention", and explain that you'd like the question to be moved to math.stackexchange.com. The reason I say this is that the answer is going to involve a lot of math, and essentially nothing related to aviation.

It is non-linear, the higher above the ground you get the faster you have to climb, see here: https://blog.xkcd.com/2009/04/06/a-date-idea-analyzed/

@TannerSwett Ok, thanks, I'll do that.

I do it quite often, trying to catch 'the green ray'. This afternoon, for example, I have seen the sun setting twice. I fly a gyro, and the sun sets behind mountains 30-35 km. away.

I've asked and it seems that this question might not be suitable on math. cc @TannerSwett

@TannerSwett.  “..the answer is going to involve..essentially nothing related to aviation..”.  Well, except for the “minor” aspect about the maximum climb rate of a high performance aircraft.....!

I've flagged it to be moved to math, and... it got "put on hold" for being off-topic instead. I'm still new here, not quite sure what I'm supposed to do about that (if anything).

I was towing gliders one evening and saw a sunrise (as I climbed) a sunset (after I started down) a sunrise (as I climbed with the next glider) and a sunset (as I finally came back to the airport).  A very pretty sight.

@Federico So what site would it be suitable for? I've looked through the entire list of SE sites, and if it's not appropriate for aviation or for math, then I guess physics would be my third choice. I'm still really new around here, and getting a little frustrated with the lack of feedback as to what I did wrong.

@HiddenWindshield I'm not really sure. you could try to ask on our meta why people think that this is off-topic here, or you could try to ask in chat for ideas

Can't imagine why this is closed.  Anyway, even in a lowly Cessna 152 I've made the last bit of the setting sun disappear, then re-appear, then disappear again, etc, multiple times as I flew westward toward a distant mountain range, while alternately flying level and climbing.  Looking for that "green rim" / "green flash', sometimes successfully.  Latitude was about 45 degrees north.

Mostly because this is a boat programming question. The questioner asks how fast do I have to go up in order to see the sunset again. In a plane. In an elevator. (Which the questioner uses.) In a space-elevator. In the space station. In a rocket. The answer has nothing to do with aviation and everything to do with math. Does whatever you are in at the moment go fast enough West and Up to do it. Not every question is on topic in some SE. (/shrug)

Concorde did something similar: it would take off from London at sunset and then fly West faster than the Earth's rotation, so you would get a sunrise in the West on board.
This capability was also used for solar eclipse flights. While a solar eclipse lasts no more than 8 minutes on the ground, Concorde was able to stay in the Moon's shadow for 74 minutes.

This question has merit in that it touches on weather and the earths rotation, which are certainly aviation related.  Amazingly, at the equator, the earth rotates at around 1000 mph, with the atmosphere going right along with it.  It will more difficult to "chase" the sun here as the ground and the air (with minor variation) are moving faster than the speed of sound.
You can climb for a second sunset factoring in the rate the ground is "sinking" from the horizon from the earths rotation.
However, at higher latitudes, the "chase" will be easier.  You can not only climb for the second sunset, but also chase it to a point where it will re-appear on the horizon if your plane is faster than the earths rotation at that latitude.  So, the solution is how fast you can climb minus the rate your location is "sinking" from the horizon (angle to the horizon), and the suns "speed" minus the aircraft ground speed.
Because the earth is curved, the "sink rate" is not linear over time (6 hours later the entire earth is between you and the sun). So you may not wish to try it too long after the sun sets!

Factor in the time of year as well because this affects the angle and rate the sun sets...

“Is it possible to see the same sunset twice, from the same aircraft”.

Well, it is possible, to see two sunrise’s on  the same flight, although these are not the same sunrise’s:
See: Chasing the double sunrise
and: The double sunrise

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
How can I calculate the velocity of air drawn by a pusher configured propeller?
I am attempting to construct a model plane using Custer channel wings. In order to calculate (or at least approximate) the lift generated I need to find the speed of the air through the channel due to the propellers. Is there an equation I can use to do this given pitch, diameter, rpm, etc?

Well, the textbooks tell you how to design a subsonic shroud for a turbofan and a propeller, but they usually don't tell you how to design half a shroud for a propeller. Besides, you need to pick a profile for the wing section in the channel also.
There are theoretical equations and heuristic ones for a propeller with not too many blades, but these are not nearly as useful as a run of CFD. The key part is to translate the number of blades and RPM, given pitch, chord, span, wash, and wingtip device into $\Delta p$ across the plane of the propeller. This is better done through simulation and experimenting than working with pen, paper and slide rule.
The roughest of the rough approximation is, of course, assuming $\alpha\approx0$ for each of the blade and $v_\mathrm{i}\approx\frac{1}{2}\cdot\omega\cdot\left(r_a\tan\theta_a+r_b\tan\theta_b\right)$ and assume $v_\mathrm{o}\approx v_\mathrm{i}$, where point $a$ is the point where the blade starts near the rotating axis, and $b$ the wingtip, $\omega$ the angluar velocity of the propeller, $r_{(\cdot)}$ the distance from the rotating axis and $\theta_{(\cdot)}$ the pitch angle.
The pusher configuration means the air hits the engine nacelle before it meets the propeller, and the propeller, therefore, works in disturbed air, if it's got a gas engine it will work also in the pulsing exhaust of the engine.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What does a sport pilot have to do to get a private pilot certificate in the US?
What are the minimum requirements for obtaining a privates pilot certificate if a pilot  already has a sport pilot certificate?
The requirements for a private pilot certificate don't changes because you already have a sport pilot license. However by successfully obtaining a Sport Pilot certificate, you should have already completed some of the private pilot requirements.

How much of your sport pilot training counts towards your private
pilot license?
How much of the training will have to be re-done?
Does it depend on
the type of your flight instructor's certificate?

If you hold a Sport Pilot certificate and are looking to upgrade it to a Private Pilot certificate, your best bet is to use the requirements of Part 61 Subpart E. All of the flight time you logged earning a Sport Pilot certificate applies towards Private, but additional hours and types of flight time need to be logged.  The training you received in the same category and class (eg Airplane, Single Engine) applies per §61.109(l) because you hold a Sport Pilot certificate.
The requirements for each are paraphrased below. You'd have to log the difference, which is a minimum of 20 hours, including another 5 hours of dual and 5 hours of solo. There's a lot more to it than what I reference below, but this is the basics.
How much of the training will have to be re-done? This should vary wildly from pilot to pilot. You'll need to redo training as required to meet standards. If you're transitioning right away, theoretically none, but it's likely that some retraining will be required.
Does it depend on the type of your flight instructor's certificate? Yes, in concert with your accomplishment level.  If the instructor has only a CFI-S (Sport) certificate, none of the dual instruction hours are able to be counted for the private pilot dual hours criteria unless you have your Sport Pilot certificate. If the instructor had a CFI-A (Airplane) certificate, the dual hours earned for your sport pilot certificate will also count toward the dual hour requirements of the private pilot certificate.
See the Kern INK Interpretation
Required for Sport (citation)

20 hours of flight time, including at least:
15 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor and at least:
5 hours of solo flight training in the areas of operation listed in §61.311

Required for Private (citation)

40 hours of flight time that includes at least:
20 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor and:
10 hours of solo flight training in the areas of operation listed in §61.107(b)(1)

If you've chosen a flight school that operates a Part 141 program, you get to do it all over. Hooray!

That's a very nice and to-the-point answer. According to what I know (actually according to Wikipedia), a Private Certificate (Part 141) can be obtained in as little as 35 hours.

Thanks! And yes, that's correct, but then the sport pilot's time will not apply towards the requirements of 141, which is an approved predetermined course.

This answer has one problem for those not familiar with the terminology (and thus those likely to seek answers in this question). If your instructor is a CFI, they can provide you with the training required for a Private Pilot certificate. -- that's correct but some people may not know there's a difference between a CFI and a CFIS. A CFIS is only able to provide instruction towards the sport pilot certificate, while a CFI can provide both... so it depends on the rating of your previous instructor(s) at the time of instruction.

@mah is correct and this answer should be updated to reflect that.  If the instructor only holds a sport pilot instructor certificate, none of those hours count towards the 20 hours of dual required for the private pilots license.  If the instructor is a CFI-A then all of the hours will directly transfer to the dual requirements of the private pilot license.

Just saw the updates. Thanks, mah and @wbeard52.

I don’t understand the CFIS paragraph.  I thought CFIS dual hours never counted towards a Private, only CFIA dual hours, but that’s not what your answer says.

I am a CFI CFII MEI with over 8000 hours dual given and direct experience in this area of confusion.  Just to clarify everything above into what is and isn't.  It comes down to they type of instructor you received your sport pilot training from.
If they are the traditional CFI your minimum of 20 hours of dual that you did with them counts.  If they were a Light Sport rated CFI none of your dual will count.
Another big concern is if you do your private pilot training part 61 or 141.  Part 61 would be the least expensive way to go since you get credit for your 20 (+) hours of dual you flew with a normal CFI.  However, under Part 141 you are signing up for an FAA approved curriculum and you have to fly the whole program and NO PREVIOUS training regardless of type of instructor can be carried over.  This is consistent with any type of 141 program regardless if it is IFR, Commercial, Multi, etc., now previous experience logged can be counted towards a Part 141 program.
The honest truth about 141 being a savings only really applies when you start from one rating and go right to the next, any time spent flying above the minimums from the previous rating or  between ratings can be applied to the next.  However there are now 141 programs out there that let you work on a combined certification where you are working on your private and IFR at the same time, this has the potential to be a real money saver for the career focused student, or even someone who is not career bound but is committed to having an Instrument rating for safety or more reliable travel.

To add a few things to egid’s answer, there are a few specific areas besides just the overall hours requirement that are not required for a sport pilot, therefore may not have been included in the training. A sport pilot would need to check their training logbooks to see if the hours meet the specific requirements below.
1) Cross-country dual and solo hours

PPL requires 3 hours of dual cross-country; SPL only requires 2 hours.
PPL requires 5 hours of solo cross-country; SPL has no specific requirement for this, only 5 hours total solo.

2) Cross-country solo distances
The cross country solo flight requirements are also different. PPL requires

§61.109 (a)(5)(ii) One solo cross country flight of 150 nautical miles total distance, with full-stop landings at three points, and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations*

Whereas SPL is only 75nm total, two legs and one leg of over 25nm.
3) Solo landings
PPL requires

§61.109 (a)(5)(iii) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport with an operating control tower.*

SPL doesn’t specify a number of solo landings except for in the cross-country flight. Note the tower requirement. There are no tower requirements for SPL unless you have a controlled airspace endorsement.
4) Night flying
Sport pilots are not allowed to fly at night, so it was probably not included in training. Private pilot requires

§61.109 (a)(2) 3 hours of night flight training in a single-engine airplane that includes—

(i) One cross-country flight of over 100 nautical miles total distance; and
(ii) 10 takeoffs and 10 landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport.

5) Instrument flight
Instrument training is not required for sport pilots. Private pilot requires

§61.109 (a)(3) 3 hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments, including straight and level flight, constant airspeed climbs and descents, turns to a heading, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, radio communications, and the use of navigation systems/facilities and radar services appropriate to instrument flight

6) Written test
You must also take the PPL written exam which is different from the SPL exam.
7) Practical test
The practical test requires 3 hours of test prep with a CFI. These have to be performed within 2 months of the test, so they will have to be redone.

* All emphasis mine.

@StephenS the accepted answer says that CFI-S doesn't count unless you have your Sport Pilot certificate. So that means if you already have your SPL it will be not be a problem, would it?

Meet the requirements listed in §61.103:
To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:
(a) Be at least 17 years of age for a rating in other than a glider or balloon.
(b) Be at least 16 years of age for a rating in a glider or balloon.
(c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant’s pilot certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft.
(d) Receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor who:
(1) Conducted the training or reviewed the person’s home study on the aeronautical knowledge areas listed in §61.105(b) of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought; and
(2) Certified that the person is prepared for the required knowledge test.
(e) Pass the required knowledge test on the aeronautical knowledge areas listed in §61.105(b) of this part.
(f) Receive flight training and a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor who:
(1) Conducted the training in the areas of operation listed in §61.107(b) of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought; and
(2) Certified that the person is prepared for the required practical test.
(g) Meet the aeronautical experience requirements of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought before applying for the practical test.
(h) Pass a practical test on the areas of operation listed in §61.107(b) of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought.
(i) Comply with the appropriate sections of this part that apply to the aircraft category and class rating sought.
(j) Hold a U.S. student pilot certificate, sport pilot certificate, or recreational pilot certificate.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Why burn fuel at departure airport instead of flying to destination before emergency landing due to deflated tire?
A Southwest airliner recently had an issue where a "deflated tire indicator" showed on one of the landing gear tires after takeoff from Oakland, CA. They circled nearby for 4 hours while burning off fuel before landing back at Oakland.
In a circumstance like that, where there's no flight control or aerodynamic problem (i.e. landing gear door stuck open), why wouldn't the flight continue on to the destination airport and burn fuel along the way? The flight time is close to the amount of time they spent circling to burn off fuel, so it's not like they get on the ground any faster by staying near their source airport.
Note that this particular plane landed safely and inspection showed no indication of any real issue with the tire, but even if it did have a flat tire, would it be any worse to go on to the destination?
I suspect that it may be just in case another in-flight emergency forces the plane to divert to an alternate airport that may not have the full emergency equipment to deal with a landing gear problem, which raises the question: if the flight had departed from a small airport with limited emergency support, would the plane travel to an alternate airport with better emergency support?

Unanswerable unless it is known whether the gear remained down.

@JoeBlow: Answerable if the two options are discussed?

Is destination better prepared to help with a possible belly landing? (Or to rescue passengers in case of a failed landing?)

The issue here is threefold:

What exactly has happened? Has one tire simply deflated? Or more than one gone?
Has some other problem happened due to the event that led to tire deflation?
If you have a damaged tire during takeoff, you have one during landing and that is not a very good thing.

A tire deflation may indicate many things- one of the tires may have deflated  or the tread may have given way, leading to debris (which will force a runway check)and damage. It is best to be cautious and asses the damage.
Also, there may be other damages to the aircraft (if for example, the tread has been damaged) which may manifest later on. For example, in a Boeing 737, tire failure lead to,

... the loss of the A system hydraulic contents, failure of the landing gear to retract...

Also,

Tyre debris had been flung upward and rearward, becoming lodged against the left rear spar close to aileron and spoiler control cables..

Unless you know for sure, it is better not to continue with the flight.
There is also this document that clearly says that in case of tire failure in takeoff (though I'm not sure how 'official' it is):

Always think twice before retracting gear and then flaps.

Also, landing with a burst tire will cause:

Possible loss of braking effectiveness
Difficulty in directional control during landing

among others. Better to be land back in the same airport rather getting diverted to an unknown airport which may or may not have the required facilities.
In the end, the decision to return to the same airport or continuing on is the captain's decision. for example, the captain of the B737 already referred declined to return to the airport (at first, anyway) though offered by the ATC.

If there was a warning light but no indication of other failures (hydraulic, etc.) and they just did not want to retract the gear without knowing, is that something that might be able to be resolved by doing a fly by and having the tower look at it? I've heard of that happening with ga, but is that sort of thing ever done with the big jets?

I have no idea what a deflated tire indication is on a 737, but perhaps the news media got something wrong in their reporting. (Nah... that never happens, does it???)
That said, the cardinal rule of landing gear problems is to leave a good configuration alone, so don't retract a gear with a possible problem, since it might not come back down again.
With the landing gear extended, your fuel burn per mile is far greater than with the gear up, so "enough fuel to get to XYZ" (based on normal gear-up cruise) isn't nearly enough to get there with the wheels down.
Any time an airliner takes off from a field they couldn't return to (most often, this comes up because the weather isn't good enough for a published approach back in), they have a "takeoff alternate" that they could get in to within a prescribed distance -- typically an hour's flying time.

But assuming that the article is correct (there are some aftermarket tire pressure sensing systems for the 737) and the only problem was a suspected flat tire, why not go to the destination airport? I understand that if the gear is down, then that affect's the planes aerodynamics and it wouldn't be wise to proceed)

@Johnny But why was the tire deflated? The crew did not have an answer to that question. If, as Ralph suggests, they hadn't raised the gear yet, then it would be a good idea to leave it alone. Maybe whatever deflated the tire also damaged the gear.

@user19474 - Ahh, now that would make sense -- if the pilot saw the low tire pressure warning before raising the gear and decided not to raise the gear in case, for example,  the tire blew out leaving loose pieces that might interfere with the mechanism preventing the gear from bring lowered again.

Indeed, but even if he raised the gear before seeing the pressure warning, there's still the question of whether there was damage to the wing from whatever damaged the tire. If in doubt, get the aircraft back on the ground and check!

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Why don't commercial aircraft have variable sweep wings?
I was wondering why commercial aircraft don't have variable sweep wings just like the Bell X-5 did? By sweeping the wing further at high altitude it helps the aircraft move faster and also it helps the aircraft to maintain enough lift during takeoff by simply changing the sweep.

This answer (for military aircraft, but answer also applies to civilian) should answer your question, although it was closed as a duplicate of Why do some military aircraft use variable-sweep wings?

I think cost saving is the main reason for the commercial planes dont have variable sweep wing. having more system means  the airlines need to spend more on maintenance.
In addition, the variable sweep wing is mostly equipped for supersonic planes that havent been popular in current commercial aviation.


text:
Could box-wing aircraft be the plane of the future
I've read that box-wing aircraft can reduce wingtip vortices caused by induced drag hence saving up a lot of fuel and hence able to carry more passengers. Would we able to see such aircraft in the near future?

This is a highly speculative question (as any question trying to predict the future)


text:
What does "running torque" mean?
I would like to know the meaning of the phrase and especially the meaning of "running torque":

Torque the inner plug to between 75 and 85lbf.in. Loosen half a turn
  and RETORQUE to between 15 and 20lbf.in more than the running torque.

So how do I find out how much is the running torque?

In what document did you find this quote? To what set of bolts does this apply? You've tagged both Airbus and Boeing, and they often have quite different terminology. Also, is lbf.in an exact quote? What does that mean? I know lb.ft meaning "foot-pounds", and lb.in meaning "inch-pounds", but I've never seen lbf.in...

Running torque is also called the "friction torque". It's the torque required to make the nut or bolt turn while the nut is "loose" you might say.  With a locking nut, the locking feature (normally either a plastic insert, or a distorted bore section of the threads that directly squeezes together on them) takes a certain amount of effort to overcome.
Since torque value is an attempt to measure the stretch in a bolt as the rotary sliding wedge of the threads is applied to pull the two ends apart, any rotational resistance forces that are added, not directly applying the clamping force to the part, will skew the final result.
If you torque to 100 inlbs, and it takes 30 inlbs of torque just to make the nut turn because it's a lock nut, when the wrench trips at 100 inlb you will only have actually applied 70 inlbs worth of "stretch" to the bolt. So if you measure 30 inlb while spinning the nut down before it clamps down, you add that to the 100 inlb value, and run the wrench to 130 and will have the proper 100 inlb application to the bolt or stud.
The proper procedure is to run the nut or bolt down to maybe half a turn to contact (washer still loose).  Measure the torque required just to move the nut the last bit before the nut makes contact, and add that to the total.  If the nut spins freely because it's a castellated nut and has no friction device and you can spin it down all the way with your fingers, don't bother because the value will be too low to measure.
This is the problem with preset click-over torque wrenches that can only measure a limit that is set beforehand, when torquing friction-locking nuts.  When a procedure calls for that running torque part, it's better to use a dial indicating or other continuous indication torque wrench that lets you do the running torque observation and addition to the final value on the fly.
When a torque is for a critical part where precision is essential, it's also important to get to the final torque in one motion value without stopping.  That's because if you stop mid way just below the final value, the torque required to get started again will be high, and may be higher than the final value, and you may get a false "I'm there" indication when you really weren't there yet.  Better to back off half a turn and do it again.
If a torque spec says to lubricate threads, this is critical as well, as the friction of the thread and nut interface itself, while the clamping force is being applied, can skew the final result. On aircraft cylinders, where a precise torque application is vital, it's standard procedure to use lots of the recommended oil on the nut and threads to get the thread friction, and the nut to flange friction, as low as possible.  Piston engine cylinder nuts generally don't use any locking devices (or washers) at all, and totally depend on clamping force to avoid backing off, and if done properly, they never do.
In the procedure you're quoting, the objective is to seat the "plug" for some reason with a larger than final force, then back off and re-tighten to a pretty low value of 15-20 (this sounds like a procedure intended for sealing purposes). Factoring in the running torque will be critical to achieving the 15-20 inlb final value.

So must i do a retorque of 15-20 inlb or a running torque +15-20 inlb? Because it is asking me to do a retorque more than the running torque.
And also just to make sure I got the definition of running torque correct. Let's say it takes 5inlb to move the plug so this is call the running torque right? Then I do a final torque of 5inlb(running torque) +20lnlb according to the quote.

Yes running torque is the friction present while turning in the threads you have to allow for. You run it in to 80 inlb +/-, back it out half a turn, and as you start to re-tighten, measure the torque present as you start it moving through that half turn back toward tight, add 15-20 on top of THAT, and tighten to the 15-20 plus what you measured running. So if you measure 10 inlbs as you are turning it in the tighten direction before it bottoms out, add 10 to the 15-20 and tighten to 25-30.  If the plug is applying a sealing pressure through the torque value, that pressure needs to be precise.

Hi John K, I'm confused on the term "bottoms out" Can you please explain, thanks :)

"Bottoms out" means the nut has made contact with the part and is starting to apply clamping force.  Before that, you just spinning the nut freely on the threads. If turning the nut with a wrench, it will be the point where the torque required to rotate the nut suddenly rises as the nut starts clamping the parts together.


text:
Are low pressure (LP) compressors and booster compressors the same thing?

Based on the above picture, are "LP compressor" and "Booster compressor" different names for the same thing or are they actually different things?

The same. LP (low pressure) compressors in turbines are sometimes referred to as booster compressors.


text:
Can private pilots drop skydivers if the pilot pays a pro-rata share?
This question was inspired by this other question. If a private pilot was to pay the pro-rata share of a flight for some skydiving friends, could they take those friends up and let them jump out?
If so, what counts as "pro rata share"? Is it expenses for the whole flight from takeoff to landing, or does the pilot assume 100% of the cost after the point where the skydivers leave the plane?

The CFRs aren’t specific (to my knowledge) about timing the exit of a skydiver from the aircraft for the purpose of determining whether pro rata cost sharing ends for that leg of flight.  If you are flying skydiving friends my advice would be to share costs in cash on a basis that you decide is in compliance.  In other words, don’t ask, don’t tell.  If you are simply asking for an opinion you will get more than you want...  if you are asking for permission you won’t get it here.

Once they jump they ain't passengers anymore.

Or, you could bypass the entire “for-hire” argument and take the jumpers up at no charge to them.

The whole “for hire” commercial vs private is so simple in its intent, yet generates SO much overthinking and so many questions by those seeking either to flirt with the edges, or who are fearful of getting in trouble for the slightest transgression.  (What if it is my idea to go flying, but my friend drives us in his car, does his paying for ground transportation constitute an illegal benefit to me?)

This is not so difficult. Many people like to refer to the regs without actually looking at the regs. This is all taken from §61.113.
Pro rata share is not the same as getting compensated.

(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

In this scenario, the pilot isn’t holding out as a commercial operator; these are his friends.
According to any online legal dictionary, the pro rata share is defined as the total cost divided by the number of shares. In other words, the total cost of fuel, oil, airport costs, and rental fees split evenly between everyone in the plane, including the pilot. As long as it is split evenly, it’s not compensation or hire, it’s cost-sharing.
All that said, NEVER do anything because some guy on stack exchange told you that it was ok. Check the regs for yourself and contact your local FSDO for clarification.

But how do you properly divide the expenses when some or all of the passengers leave the plane mid-flight?

@StephenS: You’re splitting hairs. The flight is the flight. Anyone on board when you take off is a passenger. The FAA isn’t going to sub-divide them into half-passengers or anything else, just because they jumped.

Given some of their other ridiculous rulings, I wouldn’t put it past them, and that is clearly what the OP was asking about.

If the pilot and skydivers maintain true integrity and aren't actually exchanging money or favors, then yes, it is legal.
Let's look at a couple of possible scenarios.

Scenario A: Three private pilots who have skydiving certification take turns flying the plane for each other while two of them dive. They go up acting as the pilot an equal number of times, and they all split the cost of the aircraft 3-ways.  None of them were compensated or hired for their turn flying, and they all paid a pro-rata share.
This is clearly legal, and this scenario above sounds plausible and makes sense to an outside observer.

Scenario B: a pilot agrees to spend hundreds of dollars to take two other people skydiving for no compensation and even agrees to split the cost of renting the plane 3-ways. (*How generous of him...)
If this were actually what was happening, this is perfectly legal.  However, it is suspicious; I think that if this got the attention of the FAA, they might start wondering how the pilot is really being compensated.
Is one of the skydivers mowing the pilot's lawn for free as "a favor"?  Did one of them let you borrow his backhoe a couple of times to do some landscaping?  Are they watching your kids while you're at work?

The FAA ultimately decides what compensation is, and it doesn't necessarily mean cash, so be careful with this.

This is a good answer, and no offense, but the "favor" examples you offered are just the kind of thing that drives me nuts.  Do people with driver's licenses fret over whether giving their neighbor a ride to work in exchange for lawn mowing requires a CDL and business license?  I think not.  The key phrase is "if this got the attention of the FAA".  Understand the intent, don't highlight yourself or abuse the rules, and let the FAA just go ahead and try to piece together a paper trail of lawn mowing favors as evidence against you if it ever becomes an issue...

A private pilot may possibly get away with dropping skydivers when there's no question of compensation whatsoever, but the FAA may see that differently as they consider skydiving flights as commercial operations.

Whenever there is compensation for a flight (regardless of whether the
pilot is compensated), that flight is considered a "commercial"
operation. Nearly all jump flights involve compensation and, by FAA
standards, skydiving flights are commercial operations. [...] The FAA
requires pilots to hold at least a current commercial pilot
certificate, along with a current second class medical certificate.

There are some matters to consider for the aircraft used for the operations as well.

When an aircraft is used in a commercial operation, the aircraft is
subject to a 100-hour inspection, as well as an annual inspection.

And:

Federal regulations (14 CFR Part 119) describe the certification
requirements for air carriers and commercial operators, but exempts
skydiving flights operating within 25 miles of the departure airport.
As a result, skydiving flights are conducted in accordance with 14 CFR
Part 91 and 14 CFR Part 105.

Welcome to aviation.SE! Quoting references is good, but please use the quote formatting and link to the source so we know what it is. The [tour] might be helpful if you're new to the site.


text:
What is this fairing on a Cessna 421?

What's the purpose of the fairing on fuselage, near leading edge of the wing?

It's not a step ,, engineer confirms it improves airflow on wing at certain angle.of.attack and delay stalls

That “fin” is not there on a stock Cessna 421. It's part of the RAM modification  as pointed out by Mike Sowsun. That fin corrects airflow over the wing (probably at high angle-of-attack conditions) which is perturbed by the presence of the fuselage and thereby delays the stall for that portion of the wing near the root. In essence, it "tricks" the portion of the wing near the fuselage into thinking that the fuselage isn't there.
I invite anyone else with information on the RAM mod package to add more detail in a comment and I will edit this answer accordingly.

That “fin” is not there on a stock Cessna 421. It was added when the RAM modification was done.

will edit to include your comments- thanks.

Alone with the winglets , it's only available on ram conversation Cessna only . (When comparing with other Cessna 400 series)


text:
What are the requirements to obtain the ATP license in Canada?
How much exams does a person need to do in Canada do become a ATP pilot and how many hours will be needed to become a pilot, for example ground school time, flight hour time etc....

The requirements for ATP Aeroplane are in CAR 421.34. You can read the details yourself, but in summary:

Be at least 21 years old
Hold a Category 1 medical
Pass 3 written exams
Hold a Commercial Pilot Licence - Aeroplane (valid for both day and night flight)
Have 1500hrs total time, of which at least 900 must be in aeroplanes (see the regulation for more details on night, XC and instrument time)
Within the last 12 months, demonstrate instrument flight and emergency procedures in a multi-engined aeroplane


text:
What flaps and throttle settings are used on takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, and landing?
What degree of flaps and throttle setting are used on takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, and landing? This question is for private and general aviation aircraft. I have looked everywhere for FAA manuals on this but I can't find anything, if there is a manual please link it.

Welcome to aviation.SE! This information is different for different aircraft, and also for the type of takeoff, e.g. from a short runway. If you can tell us a specific model of aircraft that you're interested in, that would help to make this more answerable. You can also search the site for previous questions that might be useful, like this one. And if you're new here, the [tour] may be interesting to understand how the site works.

Adding to Pondlife's comment, please note that there is no such thing as "private and general aviation aircraft". General Aviation (GA) is a class of operations, not a class of aircraft. Provided that you have enough money (and the appropriate ratings), nothing really prevents you from using an Airbus A380 or a Boeing 747 for GA, just like that there's little preventing you from running (especially nonscheduled) air service in something like a Cessna 172 for moving one or two people into a small outback field in the middle of nowhere.

The exact numbers vary for each model of aircraft, so the FAA et al can't provide direct guidance; regulations just say to operate according to the manufacturer's specifications and procedures.
Still, that's not too helpful, so I'll give answers for the C172, which is one of the most common light planes. Other models will vary somewhat but likely follow the same general theme.

Short takeoff: 10° flaps, full throttle
Normal takeoff: no flaps, full throttle
Climb: no flaps, high-full throttle
Cruise: no flaps, mid-high throttle
Descent: no flaps, low-mid throttle
Landing: 30°/40° flaps, idle throttle

For the ranges, it's important to note that the pilot doesn't set the throttle to a particular position per se; he/she adjusts it as needed until the desired performance (or for cruise, economy) is achieved.

Consult your aircraft's POH or AFM! They are designed by the manufacturer specifically to guide the pilot in operating the aircraft confidently. Most POH's/AFM's are laid out in a similar format:

General
Limitations
Emergency Procedures
Normal Procedures
Performance
Weight & Balance
Aircraft Systems Description
Supplemental Information

Your training airplane is required to have a copy on board for flight. Go to the airport and read your aircraft's POH to best become familiar with your airplane.


text:
Is a VOR usable on the ground when it's located at a higher elevation than the receiver?
According to the AIM 1-1-8, a VOR can be usable at an altitude below the altitude where the VOR is. But the figure only shows the VOR service volume down to zero feet AGL:

Where I fly, the VOR is at a higher elevation than the airport. Can I consider that the VOR is reliable to use in this situation? I would appreciate any references.

Would you care to specify the VOR and airport you are referencing?

I would be appreciated if you give one

In order to receive a VOR station there must be a line of sight from the airplane to the VOR.  This is basically what your chart is referencing, you can maintain line of sight at longer distances at higher altitudes.  It could be possible that the VOR is higher than the airplane and you could receive the VOR while flying below the VOR as long as you have line of sight.  However it would probably be best to make sure you have enough altitude before you try to intercept the VOR to make sure you don't have a controlled flight into terrain incident.

Great answer! The CFIT warning is very relevant!

"In order to receive a VOR station there must be a line of sight from the airplane to the VOR"... hum do you consider the ground plane reflector below the Alford Loop antennas of a Doppler VOR to be an obstacle (example)? If you do (it is), then the answer is more complex. In addition the gain in the direction of the receiver plays also its role.


text:
How can I use an ADS-B receiver to make my aircraft visible in Flightradar24?
I recently bought a SENTRY ADS-B receiver for the aircraft in order to track the flight.
How could I make Flightradar24 or Flightaware show my aircraft and how to register my aircraft on the website?

You would need an ADS-B transmitter, not a receiver.

The ADS-B Out market has quite a few options. Some, like the uAvionix, are small and can be installed in place of a winglight or a taillight and include the GPS receiver for position gathering. See skyBeacon, tailBeacon here:
https://uavionix.com/
Others, like some of the Garmin products, are intended to be wired in to the existing transponder and use that antenna for sending position information. Garmin also has numerous In/Out products also, including transponders, such as the GTX345, which I just installed to replace my very old King transponder which I wasn't sure actually worked anymore after the plane sat in storage for 12 years.
https://www.garmin.com/en-US/search/?query=ads-b

ADS-B is broadcasted by many aircraft and contains flight and aircraft information. This can easily be received and decoded, either by dedicated devices or a simple 20 bucks TV USB dongle. All information is then sent to flightradar and other sites by the members of their community. (there are also other sources for their data)
However, once ADS-B is broadcasted and received by any receiver working for flightradar, the aircraft appears on their map. There is no need to register your self, in fact, you have to opt-out if you prefer to be invisible.
Now, you write about a receiver, and also a short visit of the product page shows that your device is a receiver only. Together with the built-in GPS it might just warn you about other near aircraft (which do broadcast ADS-B). You will need an ADS-B sender to find yourself on flightradar.
In the US, ADS-B Out is required to be installed (by Jan 1, 2020), it cannot be a portable unit. ADS-B In can be a portable unit.

Thanks. According to your answer, I think I just got the wrong equipment ...    I have searched on the website, but could not find any ADS-B device which supports receive and transmit. Since I am from Asia and my company wish to track the flight on the ground. Do you know any good product that could satisfy my requirement?  Thanks again.

I think a sender is more a real aircraft equipment than just a small, simple device you can just take with you. I guess it also does not rely on GPS only and needs connections to the aircraft system, so that will not be easy nor cheap. I can't recommend a product, since I'm not an expert about that. As very cheap, not so reliable solution, are you flying low enough to have mobile internet on a cellphone all the time? There are apps out there that share your position. But make sure the phone doesn't interfere with the aircraft systems!!!

We are usually fly not over 12500 ft and do the aerial photography. The reception is pretty weak for the mobile phone. We fly British Norman (BN-2) which is 26 yr. old propeller airplane. I have found the ADS-B transceiver that seems to work for me but all I found is expensive as I estimate. The price is not what I really concern. I just want to make sure the `ADS-B transceiver is able to reach my requirement. But the description of the products is usually too difficult for me to read since my English is not good enough. But thank you once again for your kindly help.

Can you indicate what country you operate in? There may be legal issues. AFAIK the FAA does not allow portable ADS-B transmitters. They have to be installed in the aircraft.

For FR24, FA and other flight tracking websites to "see" your aircraft, it will need to have a Mode S transponder (or UAT transmitter if in the US) with ADS-B "Out" installed. That is how they track planes. You shouldn't need to "register" your plane with them unless you want to hide it from others. They may not show it by default anyway if you're not on an IFR flight plan, but that's just a viewer setting.
ADS-B "In" isn't required unless you are in an area with poor coverage and want to contribute. How (and if) to set that up would merit a separate question.


text:
What is the purpose of this item next to the cockpit window on the B737?

Hello does anybody know what the purpose of this odd looking shape is

Not from that view. Do you have another?

Here's another view found by doing an image search for "737 cockpit side": https://c8.alamy.com/comp/KH19K7/dashboard-in-a-cockpit-of-an-aircraft-boeing-737-400-boryispil-airport-KH19K7.jpg

This could just be there to prevent human body parts like an arm or the forehead to get stuck on the window handle in flight, e.g. when a pilot gets incapacitated and falls forward.

That protrusion makes it so that the pilot can only grasp, and activate, the handle by sliding his hand in to it from behind - which requires a deliberate action, rather than by accidentally resting one's hand on it from above. Since the window opening inadvertently is undesirable, it makes sense to block off the most likely means on unintentionally grabbing the handle.
It also provides a visual reference for the handle being in the locked closed position... if the handle is aligned with the fairing, it's locked; if not then it isn't.

That's gotta be a band-aid fix added after some incidents.

The 737 flies just fine with the window open, it really isn't even as noisy/windy as one would expect. The video also shows the use of that as a hand-hold to push the window closed.


text:
Is a mode C transponder required underneath Class C airspace?
FAR 91.215 states that a mode C transponder is required for...

all aircraft in all airspace above the ceiling and within the lateral
  boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an
  airport upward to 10,000 feet MSL

My flight instructor and I disagree on how this regulation is interpreted. He says that I need a transponder to fly underneath class C. I understand it to mean that I only need and transponder if I am both above and within the lateral boundaries (i.e. overflying the airspace).
Which is the correct interpretation?

Based on the quote you provided, grammatically you are correct.  Inclusion of the work "above", plus use of "and" rather than "or" supports this.  I will be interested in what others have to say...

No, you don't.  The class B mode c ring is overriding, however.  If you are under c but are somehow within a mode c ring, you need the transponder.

You are correct. You do not need a transponder to operate under Class C airspace if there are no other overlapping airspace areas where a transponder is required. In fact, if you read a little further in that reg, you'll see that is one of the places where aircraft built with no electrical system are allowed to fly at all!

The reg. states that IN or ABOVE CLASS C airspace when class C IS active a MODEC transponder is required, if CLASS C is not active you are in CLASS E airspace and a transponder is NOT required below 10.000 ft MSL,
Unless you are in the MODE C VEIL.

Do you have sources for your answer?

§91.215 (b)(4).  The answer is correct

This is dependent on where you are and the specifics of the airspace and onboard equipment.
If your aircraft was certificated with an operative engine driven electrical system, you are allowed to fly under a Class C shelf without an operative transponder.  See §91.215(b)(4).
If your aircraft was not certificated with an operative engine-driven electrical system AND you are operating within the Mode C veil of an airport described in Part 91, Appendix D(1), you may conduct operations within the Mode C veil, provided they are conducted

outside of the Class B and C airspace.
Below the ceiling of the class B or C airspace, or 10,000 ft MSL, whichever is higher.

See §91.215(b)(3).

Deleting previous comment-- the point was simply that while the two bullet points in this answer do mirror the language of the FARs, there is some ambiguity around what they actually mean.  For example, if you are a mile away from the closest part of the Class B/Class C airspace, measured horizontally, do you still have to stay below the ceiling of that airspace?  For more, see related question https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/65930/far-91-215-b3ii-transponders-significance-of-below-the-altitude-of-the .


text:
How much advance notice does the FAA have to give for a TFR?
I recently heard a story from a friend about a pilot that broke a TFR which was issued after takeoff. This sounds suspicious to me that the pilot had no advance notice of the TFR. Is the FAA able to issue an immediate TFR with no advance notice? If so, how can a pilot become aware of these?

Related: Restricted Area “popping up” around you — can it happen, and what do you do about it? - This answer mentions TFR activation.

There are multiple types of TFR (see 14 CFR 91.137 to 91.145) and in at least one case, the regulations allow a TFR to be established "immediately" (emphasis mine):

§91.139   Emergency air traffic rules.
[...]
(b) Whenever the Administrator determines that an emergency condition
  exists, or will exist, relating to the FAA's ability to operate the
  air traffic control system and during which normal flight operations
  under this chapter cannot be conducted consistent with the required
  levels of safety and efficiency—
(1) The Administrator issues an immediately effective air traffic
  rule or regulation in response to that emergency condition; and
  [...]

Two simple (?) ways to be become aware of pop-up TFRs in flight are to be talking to ATC, and to have ADS-B In.
If you're on an IFR flight plan or flight following then ATC should inform you about TFRs before you fly into them, although that isn't guaranteed. And ADS-B In data includes TFRs, but I have no idea what the refresh delay is from a TFR being issued to it reaching the cockpit.

The FAA can issue TFR's on short notice, and if you are flying a slow plane or a fast plane far they may very well pop up while you are inflight. While things that cause TFR are often planned in advance like the super bowl there are plenty of last minute things like a wildfire or a quick movement of the President that will force a fast TFR to "pop up". Even the FAA admits they can can be unexpected

TFRs can pop up unexpectedly, so before any flight, be sure to
  research NOTAMs, check the TFR list online at http://tfr.faa.gov, and
  call Flight Services for updates at 1-800-992-7433.

I can not find any regulations sating the FAA has a minimum amount of notice time they must give.
A pilot flying VFR in an airplane not radio equipped is always at risk of busting one of these. But if you are in a radio equipped aircraft taking flight following or monitoring your local FSS is a good way to be aware of these kinds of events.
This AC covering TFR's does not list a minimum amount of time they must be filed before becoming active.


text:
Who is legally responsible for tiedown ropes?
When an airport has tie downs listed on their official FAA record, who is responsible for the ropes/chains. Is there any federal regulation or legal precedent for this or is it a case-by-case determination based on the FBO policy?

Are you saying the Chart Supplement says there are tiedowns but in reality there aren't, and you're asking if that's the FAA's responsibility or the FBO's responsibility? Or are you asking if FBOs are required to provide tiedowns? Or something else? It would be great if you could explain a little more about exactly what you want to know.

Alternately, are you asking who is liable if they’re provided but fail, and your plane gets damaged as a result?

This reads like a frustrated pilot who forgot to bring his own straps.  Trust me, we don’t want the FAA inspecting and legally micromanaging at this level.  10 dollar auto part store straps will become 100 dollar Aerospace grade tie downs.

That could be read as : To PROVIDE tie downs | To MAINTAIN tiedowns | To ensure tiedowns are utilised and recovered correctly  | ???

I read this as "there is a place to park your plane for a while and tie it down if you are so inclined."  I do not expect the airport to provide the chains or ropes.  Some will, but small town or village airports are barely maintained and nobody is thinking about how to make life better for transient airplane owners.  If you intend to park and leave the plane for any length of time you should be carrying your own means of physically securing the airplane to the ground.
It's the pilot's responsibility to ensure the plane is safe.


text:
What is the difference between the WSUSnn IDs used in convective SIGMETs?
When NOAA issues a convective SIGMET, it falls under one of three bulletin IDs: WSUS31, WSUS32, or WSUS33. Below are three examples from the current forecast.
WSUS31:
WSUS31 KKCI 020455
SIGE
CONVECTIVE SIGMET 24E
VALID UNTIL 0655Z
PA
FROM 30NNW JST-20SE EWC
LINE TS 25 NM WIDE MOV FROM 24025KT. TOPS TO FL340.

OUTLOOK VALID 020655-021055
AREA 1...FROM 130SSE ILM-210ENE TRV-TRV-SAV-130SSE ILM
WST ISSUANCES POSS LT IN PD. REFER TO MOST RECENT ACUS01 KWNS
FROM STORM
PREDICTION CENTER FOR SYNOPSIS AND METEOROLOGICAL DETAILS.

AREA 2...FROM 70NNE
ASP-ECK-DXO-CLE-BUF-SYR-BKW-VXV-MSL-TTH-TVC-70NNE ASP
WST ISSUANCES POSS. REFER TO MOST RECENT ACUS01 KWNS FROM STORM
PREDICTION CENTER FOR SYNOPSIS AND METEOROLOGICAL DETAILS.

WSUS32:
WSUS32 KKCI 020455
SIGC
CONVECTIVE SIGMET 30C
VALID UNTIL 0655Z
MI WI LS
FROM 30SSE YQT-40SSE DLH
LINE TS 30 NM WIDE MOV FROM 27050KT. TOPS TO FL310.

OUTLOOK VALID 020655-021055
FROM TTH-MSL-ELD-LFK-DLF-TCC-GCK-RZC-TTH
WST ISSUANCES EXPD. REFER TO MOST RECENT ACUS01 KWNS FROM STORM
PREDICTION CENTER FOR SYNOPSIS AND METEOROLOGICAL DETAILS.

WSUS33:
WSUS33 KKCI 020455
SIGW
CONVECTIVE SIGMET...NONE

OUTLOOK VALID 020655-021055
TS ARE NOT EXPD TO REQUIRE WST ISSUANCES.

The WSUS31 is an WMO ICAO communications header. It is not a SIGMET category, it just identifies the basic item and source, in this case WSUS31 is weather-SIGMET united states, 3x is for regional distribution (eg the Americas) x1, x2, x3 are the east, central, and west SIGMET areas in the contiguous USA[CONUS].
Another example: An AIRMET for the far west area would be WAUS46. AIRMETs have 6 areas in the CONUS and 3 in Alaska, 4x means national distribution.
Distribution codes

0x,1x global
2x,3x regional
4x,8x national and bilateral
9x reserved

https://www.weather.gov/tg/awips
https://www.weather.gov/tg/headef
(sections 3.4.1 and 4.3.1) https://www.icao.int/EURNAT/EUR%20and%20NAT%20Documents/EUR%20Documents/EUR%20Documents/014%20-%20EUR%20SIGMET%20and%20AIRMET%20Guide/EUR%20Doc%2014%20%20(EN)%20-%20Edition%202,%202010%20-%20rev%2029Oct2019.pdf

Can you post the source for this as well? Thanks!

user8908459 added refs


text:
What is the required accuracy of an airspeed indicator?
What FAA document specifies the accuracy to which an airspeed indicator must be calibrated to?

There are two standards, one for traditional pitot/static devices and one for air data computers.
Traditional A/S indicators are covered by TSO-C2d which references Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., (SAE) Aerospace Standard (AS) 8019, "Airspeed Instruments", dated March 30, 1981.
Air data computers are covered by TSO-C106 which references SAE AS 8002, “Air Data Computer - Minimum Performance Standard,” dated October 30, 1981.
The SAE documents must be purchased.
Accuracy in the AS docs is not stated as a simple value. And as the system depends on installation, the aircraft level standards are applicable.
For traditional A/S indicators, repeatability is more important as installation can add errors. The aircraft manufacturer typically provides an IAS to CAS table in the POH. Since Part 23 aircraft rules have moved to a functional standard (e.g., it has to do its job well enough to be safe), there's no specified accuracy.
For Part 25 aircraft where air data computers are the norm, they must meet 14 CFR §25.1323 Airspeed indicating system.


text:
What is this high-wing, single-propeller, possibly military plane?
I recently acquired a black & white photograph of a group of military people posed in front of an airplane.  I am seeking information about the plane, and maybe the people.
The plane is mostly obscured by the people, but it is a high-wing, single propeller plane.  The wingspan looks to be about 30 feet.  The wings are straight, not swept back.
The people are pretty clearly military, but I cannot tell from what country.  Notably(?) , there is a woman among the two dozen men.
UPDATE:
Friends have speculated that the woman is Amelia Earhart.  The Amelia Earhart Museum says no.
Most military folks say that the uniforms are not military.  They speculate that they are a delivery service or maybe an airline.
UDPATE2:
The back of the photograph has a stamped "992" in red.
Also, the photo is in a nice folder with a matte (not shown).  The matte is labelled "Fas Foto".

Could you maybe post the picture here?

Hi dkalkwarf. I cropped the image to show the relevant portion. The full image is available via the revision history if someone wants to see the album as well.

Best I can do is a J-3 Cub with the prop removed but there should be a vent hole and carb inlet screen below the crankshaft, that isn't there, so I'm not so sure.

It might be good to establish where these folks are from, but they may be posing in front of a troop carrying glider.  Perhaps part of a test flying or ferrying crew team.

@JohnK nose area looks too wide and large overall for a J-3. Looks almost like a late WW1 design. There also seems to be faint lettering on the wing, looks like 3GS. Maybe that gives people some leads

Uniforms and hair styles suggest US military

Some similarity with a Waco CG-3, but smaller.

I believe this may be a TG-5 or TG-8 US Air Force training glider. The clue is that you can just see that both wing mounts are unusually long and extend all the way down to the bottom of the fuselage. That thing on the nose is for towing. https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/TG-8-Glider/5257145

Maybe a dumb question:  is there anything on the back of the picture?

A couple other thoughts:  the struts go to 2/3 or 75% span down the wings, further than the Waco gliders, and the landing gear struts (esp. just right of the woman in white) look wrong for the TG-8.  Aside from what's visible of the nose, it looks very Piper Cub or L-3...which leads me back to the TG-5, if that dark circle is a tow hook.  But if it was a TG-5, I'd expect there to be an AAF or USAF roundel on the underside of the wing (to the left side of the picture) and there isn't one.

Focke-Wulf 56 possibly?

I'd add it's very likely to be a glider given the way it's tied down, something you don't normally need to do for powered aircraft. See how the tie is very similar to this one - https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9092447 ... TG-6 is another possibility.

... Here's a civilian one which shows underwing numbering http://legendsintheirowntime.com/LiTOT/Content/1942/Av_4209_TG6_pic_p203_W.png


text:
Why are student pilots' shirt tails cut after they complete their first solo?
There's a standing tradition, at least in the USA, that a student pilot has their shirt cut, signed and dated by their instructor. What is the origin of this practice and what is its significance?

Well, in Germany at least, you used to get a proper spanking (sic!) for your first glider solo flight. Of course, this is not entirely politically correct or at the height of didactics anymore...

Here is a bucket of water / a jump in the pool fully clothed!

Supposedly, this is because in the early days of flight before intercoms were common instructors used to sit behind their students in a tandem aircraft and pull on their shirt tails to give directions. After successfully soloing, the student has shown that he doesn't need that direction any more and therefore doesn't need his shirt in one piece either.
This isn't a universal tradition: I had the end of my tie cut off to mark my first solo (in South Africa). I had to go out and buy a tie first!

As a young pup hanging around the city's airport, this seemed quite the oddity. Seeking council from a very senior pilot, he acknowledged the following details concerning the habit of cutting off a solo student pilot's shirt tail. "Back in the days of the barnstormers, the aircraft of the time (Jennys, mostly), did not have all the modern electronics that we have today. Most importantly, the radio was not yet available in aviation. So when a flight instructor felt that a student's airmanship was solid enough (would not reasonably crash the aircraft), it became incumbent upon the instructor to tie a rag on the aircraft, sometimes the tail wheel or wing struts of the aircraft, as a visual method to WARN other pilots that THIS aircraft was being flown by a student pilot... someone who was VERY inexperienced in the art of flying by himself, and to give him wide berth. As such, finding a rag on the open airfield to be used for such purposes was a rarity. So? The instructing pilot would whip out his pocketknife and cut of the tail of his flying pupil's shirt which would then be attached to the aircraft." His explanation made perfect sense... thought I'd pass it along.

Several traditions have developed in the USA around "soloing", including drenching the student with water and cutting off and permanently displaying the back of his or her shirt.
In American aviation lore, the traditional removal of a new pilot's shirt tail is a sign of the instructor's new confidence in his student after successful completion of the first solo flight. In the days of tandem trainers, the student sat in the front seat, with the instructor behind. As there were often no radios in these early days of aviation, the instructor would tug on the student pilot's shirttail to get his attention, and then yell in his ear. A successful first solo flight is an indication that the student can fly without the instructor ("instructor-less" flight). Hence, there is no longer a need for the shirt tail, and it is cut off by the (often) proud instructor, and sometimes displayed as a trophy.

Mostly duplicates the other answer.

This answer is word-for-word identical to the Wikipedia entry for First solo flight (except what here is "USA is written as "United States" on the Wikipedia page), which in turn credits Rod Marchado from "First Solo Flight" in Microsoft Flight Simulator X. @Scott, you need to cite your quote, or else it's plagiarism.


text:
What are these holes at the right front of the ATR72?
The ATR-72 has these 3 holes at the right front of the fuselage. They are marked as Captain, F/O and StandBy. It says do not obstruct, and the area inside the red lines must be smooth and clean.
What are these for?

The "static ports" are used to measure static pressure. Static pressure is the name for pressure of calm air (excluding any effect of displacement), and is used, for example, to determine altitude or vertical speed. This is not very well explained in the linked question.

@mins Fair point. But they're clearly labelled and Wikipedia will already tell you what a static port is.

@DavidRicherby: I don't disagree, just mentioning before voting to close.

Why the downvote?? The question itself isn't bad and being a duplicate isn't a negative unless it shows no effort at all.

I guess the OP didn't understand "static ports" as a name of a thing?


text:
How do you transition from a departure procedure to enroute when the DP does not end on any of the nearby enroute airways?
What needs to be done, if anything, while flying under IFR rules to go from the end of an (obstacle) departure procedure to enroute, when the departure procedure does not end on any Navaid used to define an enroute airway?
For example, looking at La Grande, Oregon (KLGD), there is the La Grande One ODP (LGD1.LGD). It ends on an NDB, which as far as I can tell is not "connected" to any of the nearby IFR airways or fixes:

Say you want to go from La Grande, Oregon to Lewiston, Idaho, and plan to do so by following V182 to the NE to the MQG VOR. If you take off from La Grande and do the ODP, once you are at 7000 MSL and turn to being on course 192 to the LGD NDB, what do you do next to get yourself onto the V182 airway? Do you just fly until the NDB reverses (you've just crossed the NDB) and then turn to a course of 309 magnetic to get to IBEAM? If so, and you're only at 9000 MSL when you get there, do you have to do any hold to allow you to climb to cross IBEAM at or above 12000 MSL?
My interest is the terrain and obstacle clearance provided by the design of the procedures without the help of ATC. (Such as might be used to ensure terrain clearance when a VFR flight is conducted on a dark and moonless night.) I realize that if you are in contact with ATC, they may be able to use MVA to vector you and provide the connection.

The answer is following "thence...". The procedure is to keep you over the valley to 7000 ft. From the NDB, the climb to get above an airway's MDA will account for obstacle clearance by the most logical or direct routing based on the normal minimum gradient (200 ft/nm).
So crossing the NDB at 7000, in the absence of an ATC instruction (comms failure) I would simply make a climbing right turn to pick up V182 and continue the climb to the cleared altitude or MDA.
Remember that IFR procedures are in large part to accommodate communications failures, where you squawk 7600 and proceed as per the comms failure hierarchy  (clearance, FPR etc).
Where there is a gap in a routing like that, normally ATC will fill it for you with an instruction, but with a comm failure you are expected to proceed in a logical and predictable way so ATC can anticipate your moves. If you squawked 7600 while on that departure approaching the NDB, ATC will expect you to cross it and proceed to the airway in your original clearance by the most logical route, which would be a right turn to intercept the track and proceed on course while climbing.

So is it fair to say, then, that the ODP was designed (by selecting the 7000 MSL number) for obstacle/terrain clearance such that if you are climbing at the normal minimum gradient, it does not matter which direction you go? To put it another way, there is a "cone" of obstacle-free space starting at the NDB at 7000 MSL slanting up at 200 ft/nm? For example, once you reach the NDB, could you turn direct to the ALW VOR as long as you kept climbing at 200ft/nm until you got to at least 12200 MSL (probably 13000 as an IFR cruising altitude)?

Yes.  It's the same for an airport. You can draw an imaginary inverted cone with a slope of 200 ft/nm from the departure end of each runway and expect obstacle clearance from the runway to whatever the lowest IFR altitude is in any direction as long as you stay above the cone's plane.  If there were any special requirements, there would be an instruction in the departure chart with a hold depicted and an instruction to maintain the hold while climbing until above altitude X.  Check the MSA sector alts on the approach charts and you will see there is plenty of margin.